We last raised with the Iranian government our ongoing concerns over the detention of prisoners of conscience and discrimination against Christians and other minority religious groups in Iran during our interventions at the Universal Periodic Review of Iran’s Human Rights at the UN on 31 October. We have not raised this individual case with the Iranian government.

We last raised with the Iranian government our ongoing concerns over the detention of prisoners of conscience and discrimination against Christians and other minority religious groups in Iran during our interventions at the Universal Periodic Review of Iran’s Human Rights at the UN on 31 October. We have not raised these individual cases with the Iranian Government.

Conflict and instability in the Middle East has made the plight of Christians and other religious minorities a significant concern. In many cases religious minorities are facing extremely difficult circumstances. Many communities are suffering, and indeed some countries risk seeing the disappearance of communities that have existed there peacefully for centuries.

We deplore all discrimination against religious minorities and constraints on their freedom to practise their faith. We regularly urge all governments in the Middle East to ensure the protection of all religious minorities. We encourage them to develop inclusive political systems that represent all of their citizens.

We work proactively in countries where we can to tackle these issues. For example, in Yemen the Middle East and North Africa Conflict Pool is delivering a grassroots community reconciliation initiative to ease tensions between different communities. In Syria a number of British Government funded projects have brought together religious leaders from all denominations (including Alawi, Christians, Kurds, Druze and Sunnis) to foster greater understanding between faiths and support reconciliation. In Tunisia, our Arab Partnership Initiative funds a project run by the Centre for the Study of Islam and Democracy which considers, amongst other things, the protection of religious minorities under the new constitution.

We last raised with the Iranian government our ongoing concerns over the detention of prisoners of conscience and discrimination against Christians and other minority religious groups in Iran during our interventions at the Universal Periodic Review of Iran’s Human Rights at the UN on 31 October. We have not raised these individual cases with the Iranian Government.

The following tables show repeat abortions for women aged 25 to 29, 30 to 34, 35 to 39, 40 to 44 and 44 years and over by gestation in weeks and the number of previous abortions, 2013. The age groups presented are in line with published data. This allows the number of previous abortions to be presented in as much detail as possible without the need for further grouping to protect patient confidentiality.

Table 1: Repeat abortions to women aged 25 - 29 by gestation, residents of England and Wales, 2013

Note: The number of abortions for women who have had four or more previous abortions have been grouped to protect patient confidentiality.

Table 2: Repeat abortions to women aged 30 - 34 by gestation, residents of England and Wales, 2013

Note: The number of abortions for women who have had four or more previous abortions have been grouped to protect patient confidentiality.

Table 3: Repeat abortions to women aged 35 - 39 by gestation, residents of England and Wales, 2013

Note: The number of abortions for women who have had 3 or more previous abortions have been grouped to protect patient confidentiality.

Table 4: Repeat abortions to women aged 40 - 44 by gestation, residents of England and Wales, 2013

Note: The number of abortions for women who have had three or more previous abortions have been grouped to protect patient confidentiality.

Table 5: Repeat abortions to women aged 44 and over by gestation, residents of England and Wales, 2013

Note: The number of abortions for women who have had one or more previous abortions have been grouped to protect patient confidentiality.

51% of the women classified as “single” in Abortion Statistics 2013 were in a relationship but not married or in a civil partnership.

More broadly, the Government’s Framework for Sexual Health Improvement in England (March 2013) highlights the importance of building knowledge and resilience amongst young people so they have the confidence and emotional resilience to understand the benefits of loving, healthy relationships and delaying sex.

No other such method is referred to or required as the publication refers to cases where the procedure is undertaken under general anaesthesia i.e. patient and fetus are anaesthetised.

Information on women who had an abortion and had previously had an ectopic pregnancy is not available.

Prior to entering these detailed discussions with Shared Services Connected Limited (a joint venture between STERIA and the Cabinet Office) all options were fully evaluated. A business case was developed to evaluate the two Independent Shared Service Centre (ISSC) options, alongside the option to remain a standalone organisation.

The business case was informed by proposals from both ISSC framework providers, which included SSCL. In order to complete these proposals, both providers learned about the existing MOJ Shared Services organisation through visits to our sites and through the information that was provided to them about:

How Shared Services fitted in to the MOJ organisation.

What services they provided and who their customers were.

How many transactions were processed in a typical day.

Who their partners were and what systems they used.

The projects that were currently under way.

The evaluation criteria in the business case included people impact, services delivery, cost and IT. Overall the SSCL proposal was the strongest, in part due to the investment that they were already making in a new IT platform and the fact that the costs of this could be shared across multiple Government Departments.

The Ministry of Justice is now entering into detailed discussions with Shared Services Connected Limited (SSCL) regarding the future delivery of their back office services, with the intention of awarding a contract in August 2014.

The Home Office have also been considering their options at the same time as the Ministry of Justice but the two Departments have completed their evaluations as separate and independent exercises. The Home Office have reached the same conclusion and assessed SSCL to be its preferred option. The two Departments have started contract negotiations at the same time but each will have a separate contract with SSCL. It is intended that MOJ and Home Office follow the same process going forward and will make changes within the same time scales.

Both of these evaluations followed the publication of the Government’s Next Generation Shared Services Strategy in December 2012 and a rigorous procurement exercise completed by Cabinet Office to select the providers of the two Independent Shared Service Centres.

The Ministry of Justice is entering into detailed discussions with Shared Services Connected Ltd (SSCL) regarding the future delivery of their back office services with the intention of awarding a contract in August 2014. We expect this to bring increased savings and efficiency in back-office functions, provide further benefits across wider Government and offer better value for money to the tax payer.

SSCL have stated their intention of providing 12 months job protection for all transferring staff from the point of transfer in October 2014. This means that there will be no compulsory redundancies during this period. No decisions have been made to close buildings and we expect all sites to remain open during this period.

Following the transfer of staff, services and IT, there will be a stabilisation stage during which SSCL will look at how the service is currently delivered. No decisions will be made until SSCL has had the opportunity to fully understand the operation.

We will continue to work with staff, trade unions and other stakeholders to assess any impacts on staff.

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is entering into detailed discussions with Shared Services Connected Ltd (SSCL) regarding the future delivery of their back office services with the intention of awarding a contract in August 2014.

Prior to entering these detailed discussions with SSCL, all options were fully evaluated. A business case was developed to evaluate both Independent Shared Service Centre (ISSC) options as well as the option for back office to remain a standalone organisation.

Detailed information was put together on the in-house option, which reflected our existing organisation and also any known plans for the coming years, including those for growth in our customer numbers. This information was prepared in parallel with the proposals from the two ISSC framework providers. The costs and benefits of all three options between now and 2021-22 were assessed and this informed the business case, which was approved by the MOJ departmental board.

The MOJ has been meeting regularly with trade union representatives since we started considering the options in December 2013 prior to any decisions being made and also prior to taking the outcome of the evaluation to the MOJ departmental board. Trade Union representation includes representatives from Public and Commercial Services (PCS).

Once we knew the decision had been taken to enter into detailed discussions with Shared Services Connected Ltd (SSCL). We informed trade union representatives. Formal consultation is now taking place about the transfer of MOJ staff to SSCL under TUPE. We have been working with these staff and keeping them informed of developments. This will continue throughout the transition process.

SSCL recognise our existing unions, including PCS, and will continue to consult with them after the staff transfer has taken place.

The Ministry of Justice is entering into detailed discussions with Shared Services Connected Limited (SSCL) regarding the future delivery of their back office services with the intention of awarding a contract in August 2014. We expect this to bring increased savings and efficiency in back-office functions, provide further benefits across wider Government and offer better value for money to the tax payer.

It is a part of Shared Services Connected Limited’s business strategy to move some of its work offshore. However, no decision has been taken to move any of the work of MOJ Shared Services offshore. Should there be any proposals to offshore MOJ work in the future, specific agreement would be needed from the MOJ. This would also include the need to make sure that the right level of data security was in place.

Infertility affects thousands of couples so the Department welcomed the National Institute of Care Excellence recommendations in its revised 2013 guideline on fertility. The Department expects local national health service organisations to have regard to this new guidance when making decisions about offering fertility services to their communities.

We recognise that some NHS commissioners have set their own local criteria for access to fertility treatment, including restriction related to existing children. This was identified by the Expert Group on Commissioning NHS Infertility Provision in 2009 and an approach to address these variations was outlined in Infertility Network UK's (INUK) “Standardising Access Criteria to NHS Fertility Treatment” guidance, which was funded by the Department.

The Department has promoted this guidance in letters to the NHS, in replies to correspondence, in funding INUK to engage with NHS commissioners and through links to the Department of Health and NHS England websites.

It is for NHS England to make decisions about issuing guidance to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) about the commissioning of fertility services. In February 2013, it published “Commissioning fertility services factsheet”, which provides guidance to CCGs about commissioning fertility services.

It is for NHS England to assess in individual cases whether a CCG has failed to discharge its functions. It is also for NHS England to provide guidance on the threshold for the use of its formal intervention powers.

Infertility affects thousands of couples so the Department welcomed the National Institute of Care Excellence recommendations in its revised 2013 guideline on fertility. The Department expects local national health service organisations to have regard to this new guidance when making decisions about offering fertility services to their communities.

We recognise that some NHS commissioners have set their own local criteria for access to fertility treatment, including restriction related to existing children. This was identified by the Expert Group on Commissioning NHS Infertility Provision in 2009 and an approach to address these variations was outlined in Infertility Network UK's (INUK) “Standardising Access Criteria to NHS Fertility Treatment” guidance, which was funded by the Department.

The Department has promoted this guidance in letters to the NHS, in replies to correspondence, in funding INUK to engage with NHS commissioners and through links to the Department of Health and NHS England websites.

It is for NHS England to make decisions about issuing guidance to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) about the commissioning of fertility services. In February 2013, it published “Commissioning fertility services factsheet”, which provides guidance to CCGs about commissioning fertility services.

It is for NHS England to assess in individual cases whether a CCG has failed to discharge its functions. It is also for NHS England to provide guidance on the threshold for the use of its formal intervention powers.

Infertility affects thousands of couples so the Department welcomed the National Institute of Care Excellence recommendations in its revised 2013 guideline on fertility. The Department expects local national health service organisations to have regard to this new guidance when making decisions about offering fertility services to their communities.

We recognise that some NHS commissioners have set their own local criteria for access to fertility treatment, including restriction related to existing children. This was identified by the Expert Group on Commissioning NHS Infertility Provision in 2009 and an approach to address these variations was outlined in Infertility Network UK's (INUK) “Standardising Access Criteria to NHS Fertility Treatment” guidance, which was funded by the Department.

The Department has promoted this guidance in letters to the NHS, in replies to correspondence, in funding INUK to engage with NHS commissioners and through links to the Department of Health and NHS England websites.

It is for NHS England to make decisions about issuing guidance to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) about the commissioning of fertility services. In February 2013, it published “Commissioning fertility services factsheet”, which provides guidance to CCGs about commissioning fertility services.

It is for NHS England to assess in individual cases whether a CCG has failed to discharge its functions. It is also for NHS England to provide guidance on the threshold for the use of its formal intervention powers.

Infertility affects thousands of couples so the Department welcomed the National Institute of Care Excellence recommendations in its revised 2013 guideline on fertility. The Department expects local national health service organisations to have regard to this new guidance when making decisions about offering fertility services to their communities.

We recognise that some NHS commissioners have set their own local criteria for access to fertility treatment, including restriction related to existing children. This was identified by the Expert Group on Commissioning NHS Infertility Provision in 2009 and an approach to address these variations was outlined in Infertility Network UK's (INUK) “Standardising Access Criteria to NHS Fertility Treatment” guidance, which was funded by the Department.

The Department has promoted this guidance in letters to the NHS, in replies to correspondence, in funding INUK to engage with NHS commissioners and through links to the Department of Health and NHS England websites.

It is for NHS England to make decisions about issuing guidance to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) about the commissioning of fertility services. In February 2013, it published “Commissioning fertility services factsheet”, which provides guidance to CCGs about commissioning fertility services.

It is for NHS England to assess in individual cases whether a CCG has failed to discharge its functions. It is also for NHS England to provide guidance on the threshold for the use of its formal intervention powers.